harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 11:49 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:45 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy
containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better
fuels.
**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????
Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.
I should lie down and take a pill if I were you.
If I were you I'd shoot myself. I couldn't live with being thicker than
a cockroach.
You know, you're as bad as drivel in your own way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel
Whether hydrogen burns or not, and in doing so can be made to provide
useful energy, is not germane to the issue. More important is whether
the fuel (hydrogen in this case) can be mass produced, conveniently
distributed, and is then convenient at the point of use. For fuelling a
few rockets where cost is secondary, the answer is gonna be "yes". For
fuelling billyuns of cars and safely giving them a useful range, the
answer is gonna be "no".
I can go 600 miles on a tankful of dizzle. It can be stored in a simple
tank at atmospheric pressure, a tank made of steel and not some exotic
material. Try doing that with any useful amount of hydrogen. Energy
density is all, y'see.
Actually, with hydrogen, it isnt.

Its BULKY. Light but BULKY. that makes it unsuitable for aircraft. Too
much tank, too much drag.

That is specific energy density as opposed to volumetric energy
density.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml
yep 2.36 Kwh/liter in liquid form

Diesel is about 10.....

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Sep 21, 7:14*pm, tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?

Because its bloody useless in practice..

Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.

Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And where can we put ours then;?...
--
Tony Sayer

I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..

How would you do that and where ?..

Thats practical of course...

And energy efficiency.

Yes we know your gaff has walls a metre thick, but how can you retrofit
all that ??...
--
Tony Sayer

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. uk...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Do explain

--
geoff

In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long periods
without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few hundred
hours
if that.

Oh no! He thinks it is the 1960/70s again. Not that old one. The seal
problem was solved decades ago. The Russians have a design that has the
seal in the engine body, which can easily be replaced by removing a
plate -
DIY job. This shows his age and state of mind.

If they are as good as that any reason they haven't made a re
introduction to automotive in more recent years?..

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

--
Tony Sayer

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

So what about an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2, then, like on
Venus. Does that destroy itself?

Another thicko. If we went to Venus and breathed in we would die
within a minute or two.

Yes, but the atmosphere wouldn't
how does "excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere" ?




--
geoff

tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..

How would you do that and where ?..

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians when London drowned.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message ...
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long periods
without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few hundred hours
if that.

Oh no! He thinks it is the 1960/70s again. Not that old one. The seal
problem was solved decades ago. The Russians have a design that has the
seal in the engine body, which can easily be replaced by removing a plate -
DIY job. This shows his age and state of mind.

If they are as good as that any reason they haven't made a re
introduction to automotive in more recent years?..

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines. Corporations run matters.

One of the joys of being a conspiracy theorist must be never having to
think. *Anything* can be explained away once you believe in conspiracies.

Tim

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..

How would you do that and where ?..

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians when London drowned.

where would you get the water from without pumping it in?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..
How would you do that and where ?..

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians when London drowned.

where would you get the water from without pumping it in?

There's a river or several running into that area, in case you'd not
noticed... It's at least a thousand square miles of cachment area for
hydro. For tidal, a barrier from Sheerness to Southend would do a
reasonable job, with a decent reservoir area and a three or four meter
difference between high and low water.

Inserts tongue firmly in cheek Or you could use nuclear power to pump
it in from the Channel.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..
How would you do that and where ?..

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians when London drowned.

where would you get the water from without pumping it in?

There's a river or several running into that area, in case you'd not
noticed...

yes, but if you dam higher of the source of the river, it will take a very
long time to fill up

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:59 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary
extended-range development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed
the rotary-packing A1 e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show.
That allegedly led to talks between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that
Mazda was developing a special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi A1
e-tron. While Audi chose to forgo a rotary for its eventual
road-going A1 e-tron, it appears Mazda won't doing the same.

Says it all, really. The largest European car maker group has
investigated the wankle for just this purpose and abandoned it. And
they own the patents for the principle.

Mazda will be looking to sell to the gullible like you who have no
knowledge of their own, but believe press handouts. But in your case
you couldn't afford one anyway.


All true but there is still hope for it yet.

I sincerely doubt it. Many millions have been spent researching all sort
of variations on the IC engine, but the good ol standard piston engine
soldiers on. Remember the Orbital? Much newer design than the wankle and
died a death after similar amounts of hype - and from those who know a lot
more than dribble.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine with an even more inefficient one - with a proven shorter
life too. It's a win win situation as he would say...

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Do explain

Maxie the atmosphere is fines and healthy. Lots of CO2 it put into there
atmosphere and them it is sick.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long
periods
without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few hundred
hours
if that.

Oh no! He thinks it is the 1960/70s again. Not that old one. The seal
problem was solved decades ago. The Russians have a design that has the
seal in the engine body, which can easily be replaced by removing a
plate -
DIY job. This shows his age and state of mind.

If they are as good as that any reason they haven't made a re
introduction to automotive in more recent years?..

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.

What corporations and why then?..

Go to Youtube and type in "John Perkins".....and look and learn.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

So what about an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2, then, like on
Venus. Does that destroy itself?

Another thicko. If we went to Venus and breathed in we would die within a
minute or two.

Yes, but the atmosphere wouldn't
how does "excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere" ?

Maxie, you must pay attention. Do not act like the rest of the knobs on
here.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..

How would you do that and where ?..

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood the
Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all the
politicians when London drowned.

Boy! And thought you were dumb!

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long
periods
without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few hundred
hours
if that.

Oh no! He thinks it is the 1960/70s again. Not that old one. The seal
problem was solved decades ago. The Russians have a design that has
the
seal in the engine body, which can easily be replaced by removing a
plate -
DIY job. This shows his age and state of mind.

If they are as good as that any reason they haven't made a re
introduction to automotive in more recent years?..

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.

One

Silly person, Most cars in the world are made a handful of companies. Have
you noticed.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:59 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary
extended-range development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed
the rotary-packing A1 e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show.
That allegedly led to talks between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that
Mazda was developing a special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi A1
e-tron. While Audi chose to forgo a rotary for its eventual
road-going A1 e-tron, it appears Mazda won't doing the same.

Says it all, really. The largest European car maker group has
investigated the wankle for just this purpose and abandoned it. And
they own the patents for the principle.

Mazda will be looking to sell to the gullible like you who have no
knowledge of their own, but believe press handouts. But in your case
you couldn't afford one anyway.

All true but there is still hope for it yet.

I sincerely doubt it.

Senile person, read what was posted - you can move your lips while reading.
Mazda are making it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient. 80%
of the energy in the tank is wasted.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
o.uk...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Do explain

Maxie the atmosphere is fines and healthy. Lots of CO2 it put into
there atmosphere and them it is sick.


Sorry, that was total nonsense, would you like to try again

Take your medication first this time

--
geoff

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

So what about an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2, then, like on
Venus. Does that destroy itself?

Another thicko. If we went to Venus and breathed in we would die
within a minute or two.

Yes, but the atmosphere wouldn't
how does "excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere" ?

Maxie, you must pay attention. Do not act like the rest of the knobs on
here.

Take your meds then answer the question


--
geoff

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

The US government say 30% for petrol, 45% for diesel. Some large, low
speed, turbocharged two stroke diesels manage over 50%.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...sel_engine.pdf

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn something
for once. But I doubt it.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:13:54 +0100 John Williamson wrote :
I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power..

How would you do that and where ?..

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians when London drowned.

Small hydro plant at Teddington Lock has been under consideration for
years. Don't think it will come anywhere near 'huge' though.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:26:02 +0100 Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
I sincerely doubt it. Many millions have been spent researching all sort
of variations on the IC engine, but the good ol standard piston engine
soldiers on. Remember the Orbital?

My Prius apparently has an Atkinson cycle engine, but I couldn't quite
make out whether the innards are any different to any other engine, or
whether it is just a valve timing difference.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:26:02 +0100 Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
I sincerely doubt it. Many millions have been spent researching all
sort of variations on the IC engine, but the good ol standard piston
engine soldiers on. Remember the Orbital?

My Prius apparently has an Atkinson cycle engine, but I couldn't quite
make out whether the innards are any different to any other engine, or
whether it is just a valve timing difference.

On the Prius, it's a normal four stroke engine with the valve timing set
to use the principles of the Atkinson cycle. It's a double edged sword -
it gives good results when running light - but is very inefficient at high
demand. Which is why the Prius is so heavy on fuel when driven hard.
Other Toyota hybrids don't use an Atkinson cycle engine. The Prius was
optimised as a town car for places like LA.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

geoff wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Do explain

Maxie the atmosphere is fines and healthy. Lots of CO2 it put into
there atmosphere and them it is sick.

Sorry, that was total nonsense,

That was the idea Maxie. As you write it you may understand it better that
way..

geoff wrote:

Maxie, you must pay attention. Do not act like the rest of the knobs
on here.

Take your meds then answer the question

Maxie, did you have a good night on the Guinness last night? Fantastic!
What a man. 15 pints in one night. Fantastic indeed.

John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

The US government say 30% for petrol, 45% for diesel.

Running constantly at optimum conditions. In real world driving 20% for
petrol and a little more for the soot emitting crap engines. Diesels are a
waste of time in vehicles. Heavy and dirty and more complex than petrol
engines. Petrol engines in hybrid buses are far better and also in hybrid
trucks.

Some large, low speed, turbocharged two stroke diesels manage over 50%.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...sel_engine.pdf

My God! It says 45 percent and "further advances are possible". The 45% is
a static constant peed job like in a ship or generator.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

Maxie, excess CO2 destroys the atmosphere - a known fact.

Do explain

Maxie the atmosphere is fines and healthy. Lots of CO2 it put into
there atmosphere and them it is sick.

Is this English?

To Maxie, yes.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Exactly what Our Dave said. Can't you read? We know you can't write.

My God another person of great senility. The senile Jocko wrote "highly
inefficient piston engine". There is no such thing.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."

Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

The US government say 30% for petrol, 45% for diesel.

Running constantly at optimum conditions. In real world driving 20% for
petrol and a little more for the soot emitting crap engines. Diesels are
a waste of time in vehicles. Heavy and dirty and more complex than
petrol engines. Petrol engines in hybrid buses are far better and also
in hybrid trucks.

Some large, low speed, turbocharged two stroke diesels manage over 50%.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...sel_engine.pdf


My God! It says 45 percent and "further advances are possible". The
45% is a static constant peed job like in a ship or generator.

Slow speed marine diesels have been doing slightly better than 50% since
the 1950s.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."


Say it as often as you wish. It still doesn't make it true.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
My God another person of great senility. The senile Jocko wrote "highly
inefficient piston engine". There is no such thing.

You're right. But still can't read.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."

No matter how many times you repeat your lies doesn't make them true.

BTW, when are you going back into the clinic?

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

Again....."This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx
20% efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted."


Say it as often as you wish. It still doesn't make it true.

IT IS TOTALLY TRUE in normal road running operation.

John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.


What corporations and why then?..

More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

The US government say 30% for petrol, 45% for diesel. Some large, low
speed, turbocharged two stroke diesels manage over 50%.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...sel_engine.pdf


Those are peak efficiencies. The average for a car is about 20%, and for
a diesel 25% or so.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20% efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient piston engine

This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient. 80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.

Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at
anything like the sweet spot' most of the time.

I am always right!